The Slovak Prosecutor’s Office contested the decision on the ecological burden of Istrochem

Last year, the opposition criticized the state for unjustifiably exempting the Agrofert concern from the obligation to remediate pollution in the area of ​​the former chemical company Istrochem in Bratislava. The opposition party Progressive Slovakia expressed its belief that the district office decided in favor of Agrofert.

There has now been a shift in the case. “The Regional Prosecutor’s Office in Bratislava filed three objections by the prosecutor against the decisions of the Bratislava District Office to stop the proceedings on the determination of the liable person for the environmental burden located on the premises of the Istrochem company,” informed the spokeswoman of the prosecutor’s office, Gabriela Kováčová.

According to her, the decisions are premature, because in the proceedings it has not yet been proven that the legal conditions for the obligations related to the removal of the environmental burden, which would otherwise be imposed on the liable person, should be borne by the state, or by the ministry designated by the government.

“Protests filed by the prosecutor were also delivered to the Deputy Prime Minister and the Minister of the Environment of the Slovak Republic,” added Kováčová. According to the original decision, the state would bear the costs of cleaning up the heavily contaminated area, even though it is owned by Babiš’s former company.

Istrochem, formerly known as Dynamitka, passed into the hands of Agrofert as a result of a merger in 2006, although the purchase took place already in 2002. At that time, Babiš bought the Bratislava factory from the state for approximately 202 million Slovak crowns (152 million CZK) and pledged to invest another billion Slovak crowns (750 million CZK) in the company.

In conversion, the investments at that time correspond to approximately 40 million euros (1.12 billion CZK).

However, part of the acquisition was also a huge ecological burden. Long-term chemical production caused massive soil and groundwater pollution, during which substances with proven carcinogenic effects leaked into the environment. Although production in the original range ended years ago, according to ecologists, the area remains a ticking time bomb.

Who should finance the rehabilitation – the state or Agrofert – has been discussed for years. Cost estimates range from tens to hundreds of millions of euros (in the order of billions of CZK).

Last year’s decision of the district office, which transferred the responsibility for remediation to the state, was questioned by the non-parliamentary party Democrats. Following her initiative, the prosecutor’s office intervened and contested the office’s decision in three separate complaints.

According to the vice-chairman of the Democrats, Michal Kiča, this means that the Ministry of the Environment’s room for further action has significantly narrowed. “The ministry cannot submit a proposal until it is clearly determined who is responsible for the cleanup,” he said.

The Ministry of the Environment, under the leadership of Tomáš Taraba, stated that the decision proves that the parties to the proceedings – especially the Bratislava city district Nové Mesto – should not have allowed the decision of the district office to acquire legal force. At the same time, he emphasizes that Taraba did the right thing by not yet submitting a proposal to the government to remediate the environmental pollution in Istrochem.

The resort also reiterates that it will not submit any similar proposal until the legislation is approved, which will guarantee the return of the money spent on cleaning private lands to the state. Taraba thus puts himself in the role of the one who “holds back” rehabilitation until he has legal and financial insurance for the state.